### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40226

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CHARLES STEPHEN DROUIN, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:09-CR-1055-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A jury convicted Charles Stephen Drouin o f p o s s e ssion with intent to distribute more than 292 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Drouin contends that the e vidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the Government failed to p r o v e th a t he had knowledge of the presence of the ma rij u a n a found in the truck that he was in driving when he was stopped. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May10 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40226 Document: 00511851192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2012No. 11-40226

Drouin moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s

case and again at the close of all evidence, thereby preserving his challe n g e to the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Olguin , 643 F.3d 384, 393 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we review de novo “to determine whether a rational jury could have f

o u n d the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. In evaluati n g th e s ufficiency of the evidence, this court views all evidence, dra w s all reasonable inferences, and makes all credibility determinati o n s in the light most favorable to the verdict. United States v. Mendoza , 522 F.3d 482, 488 (5th Cir. 200 8). “Knowledge c a n b e inferred from control of the vehicle in some cases; however, when the drugs are hidden, c o n trol over the vehicle alone is not sufficient to prove knowledge.” Id. at 489 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In a hidden compartment situation, this Court requires other circumst a n t i a l evidence that is suspicious in nature or demonstrates guilty knowl e d g e .” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found that the Government proved the essential elements of the offense of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt. Drouin’s nervousness when questioned by the government ag e n t s , h is avoiding eye contact with them, and his hesitance and evasive responses to their questions; the v a lue of the drugs found in the truck (estimated to be worth $ 565,000); and the fact that some of the drugs were found in an o p e n wheelbarrow and that Drouin had the keys to the toolboxes where the rest of the drugs were found, was sufficient circumstantial evidence of Drouin’s gu il ty knowledge. See United States v. Villarreal , 324 F.3d 319, 324-25 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Gonzalez-Lira , 936 F.2d 184, 192 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Diaz-Carreon , 915 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Rivera , 444 F. App’x 774, 781-83 (5th Cir. 201 1). The conviction is AFFIRMED.
2 Case: 11-40226 Document: 00511851192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2012